Assam Elections: The Significance Of Welfare Vote As The State Eyes for A Hattrick

• What emerges from the competing manifestos of the Congress and the BJP in Assam is not a fundamental disagreement about whether welfare should exist, but about who controls it

• Incumbents enjoy a structural advantage: they can immediately deliver cash benefits, while opposition parties are often limited to matching these promises, feel experts

• They also say that welfare schemes pose challenges for fiscal management, as sustaining long-term direct transfer programmes can strain state finances

In the run-up to the April 9 elections, the campaign in Assam took on a texture now familiar to observers of Indian politics—a competition of welfare promises, with each party trying to outspend and out-promise the other on cash transfers and entitlements. While the contest between the BJP and Congress in 2026 is primarily about ideology or identity, it’s also about who can convincingly promise that money will keep arriving in voters’ bank accounts.

At the centre of the BJP’s pitch is Orunodoi, its flagship direct benefit transfer (DBT) scheme. Under Orunodoi, eligible women receive monthly financial assistance of Rs 1,250 directly in their bank accounts, and the scheme currently covers nearly 40 lakh beneficiaries across the state. The programme has become a powerful political symbol because it is visible, regular and easy to explain. Many voters in rural Assam see Orunodoi as a monthly credit in the bank account.

That visibility was carefully amplified in the run-up to the election. Barely a week before the Election Commission announced the poll schedule, Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma transferred Rs 9,000 to four million women under the scheme on March 10, a total outlay of Rs 3,600 crore. The payment covered dues for January through April 2026, with a Bohag Bihu bonus added so that families could celebrate the Assamese New Year. Whether viewed as timely welfare delivery or shrewd campaign choreography, Orunodoi is seen as the BJP’s most potent electoral asset.

The party’s Sankalp Patra, unveiled by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on March 31, pledges to increase the monthly assistance under Orunodoi to Rs 3,000 in phases and expand coverage to an additional 15 lakh households, along with a Rs 25,000 lump sum to existing beneficiaries. On the rally trail, Sarma announced that two women from the same household would now be eligible under the scheme, relaxing the existing one-family-one-beneficiary rule, calling it a “wedding gift” from the government for newly married brides.

A Welfare Ecosystem

The welfare architecture the BJP has built goes well beyond Orunodoi alone. The Mukhyamantri Mahila Udyamita Abhiyan (MMUA), which provides an entrepreneurial fund for rural women to support small businesses, runs alongside it. The BJP manifesto promises to create 40 lakh “Lakhpati Baideos”, women entrepreneurs crossing the one-lakh-a-year income mark, through livelihood and entrepreneurship support.

For students, the government has the Mukhyamantri Nijut Moina scheme for girl students, monthly assistance of Rs 1,000 is provided to those in Class 11, Rs 1,250 to undergraduates, and Rs 2,500 to postgraduate students, paid for 10 months in a year through DBT. Its counterpart, the Mukhyamantri Nijut Babu Asoni, launched in February 2026, provides Rs 1,000 per month to first-year undergraduate male students and Rs 2,000 to postgraduate students from families earning below Rs 4 lakh annually. Together, the two schemes signal an intent to extend the state’s DBT reach from the household to the next generation.

The BJP’s Sankalp Patra promises universal cashless coverage of up to Rs 5 lakh per family under Ayushman Bharat, and has proposed a five-year “Assam Swasthya Utkarsha Abhijan” with a Rs 50,000 crore corpus to strengthen health infrastructure, including advanced cancer treatment using proton therapy and dedicated geriatric wards with specialist doctors in district hospitals.

For the elderly, the BJP has promised continuity with existing pension schemes. Currently, under the Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme, senior citizens aged 60–79 receive Rs 200 per month, while those above 80 receive Rs 500, figures that have remained static for years and are likely to be a quiet point of electoral vulnerability.

Amitabh Tiwari of political research firm Vote Vibe, says that opinion poll has indicated that respondents believe cash transfer schemes consolidate and even attract opposition voters. “These schemes work because direct cash transfers give beneficiaries complete autonomy over how they spend the money. This is particularly significant for women, for whom such schemes translate into a form of financial empowerment.” The opposition, he argues, faces a structural dilemma: “It must either match these schemes, often difficult since it can only promise while incumbents are already delivering, or shift the debate to broader governance issues, which it has largely failed to do so far.”

The opposition Congress, well aware that it cannot simply ignore this terrain, has tried to outflank the BJP not by rejecting welfare politics but by reframing it. Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge released the party’s manifesto, the “Raijor Istahar”, on March 29, anchored around five key guarantees—cash transfers for women, expanded health insurance, land rights for indigenous communities, a pension for senior citizens, and justice in the Zubeen Garg case.

On women, the Congress’s central argument is one of universality over selectivity. “We are calling the cash transfer unconditional,” Kharge said. “The money that the BJP is giving to women now is conditional. To become a beneficiary, one has to be a member of the BJP, but we won’t impose such conditions.” The party has not specified the amount of its monthly transfer, a detail that may matter more to voters than the manifesto’s authors assume, but has paired it with Rs 50,000 in startup support for women entrepreneurs.

The healthcare contrast is the starkest difference between the two manifestos. The Congress has promised Rs 25 lakh in cashless health insurance per family, five times the BJP’s Ayushman Bharat ceiling, citing its track record in Rajasthan, Karnataka and Telangana. On pensions, the Congress has been more concrete than the BJP. A new commitment of Rs 1,250 per month for senior citizens, paired with a dedicated ministry for elderly welfare.

Land is one of Assam’s deepest political fault lines. The Congress has pledged to convert temporary eksoniya pattas into permanent miyadi pattas for around 10 lakh indigenous people. An eksoniya patta grants annual, renewable land rights; a miyadi patta confers full ownership, including the right to sell, transfer or borrow against the land. In a state where land, identity and belonging are inseparable, that promise is designed to go beyond welfare and speak to security and recognition in a way that a cash transfer cannot.

What emerges from the competing manifestos is not a fundamental disagreement about whether welfare should exist, but about who controls it and how universal it should be. The difference lies in delivery credibility. The BJP’s incumbency is an advantage the Congress cannot easily neutralise from the opposition benches. Political scientist Vikas Tripathi of Gauhati University explains: “Welfare schemes remain consistently relevant and have worked across states like Bihar, Maharashtra and Jharkhand, with substantial research establishing their efficiency, particularly in influencing women voters. The Orunodoi scheme stands out as especially impactful because it enables direct cash transfers to beneficiaries. Similarly, self-help group initiatives and student-focused programmes like the Nijut Moina scheme have proven to be game changers during election periods.”

But he is equally candid about the risks. “These schemes pose challenges for fiscal management, as sustaining long-term direct transfer programmes can strain state finances. Moreover, incumbents enjoy a structural advantage: they can immediately deliver cash benefits, while opposition parties are often limited to matching these promises, frequently repackaging similar schemes with altered language.” 

A shorter, edited version of this appears in print

This article appeared in Outlook’s April 21 issue, 'I ran to bomb Iran, but instead I ran' which looked at the US-Israel war on Iran and what it means for families living through it and what is at stake in the states going to elections in the first phase